“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82 vs A lost Bridge  or
     When the Route to Freedom was interfered with and
      turned upside down
   (formation of the ‘David Mayo Bridge’)  (1)
(Introduction, Chronological overview, significance of GPM's invalidated)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here !

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

The early 1950's status quo:
        
“The methods which have been used, up to this time, have all been called Standard Procedure. It's very interesting to hear somebody out in the field say, ‘Well, this new method I have of standing the preclear on his head in the corner and auditing him through a megaphone replaces Standard Procedure.’ Believe me, if there's any way at all of increasing the efficacity of processing by standing a preclear on his head in the corner and auditing him through a megaphone, that will become part of Standard Procedure.
        
 
Standard Procedure is an extremely varying affair. It would probably be better called ‘Proven Procedure’. And it changes. It changes about every sixty days at least. It changes in the direction of less work and thought on the part of the auditor and faster processing for the preclear.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from Science of Survival lecture #1 “Theta-Mest Theory, Part 1”, given on 21 May 51)  
        
sound  Sound snippet (1:10) 
        

... the research travel started in 1950 met its conclusion in 1970 when it was announced:
        
“So technical progress has been:
        
 
CLASS VIII - 1968.
 
 
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
 
 
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.
 
 
This is quite an achievement.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)  


Back to “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)”  index page


Previous technology replaced with new technology - Tech changes 1978-82  (1)

This time span does deserve special mention as it was during this time span that the Grade Chart and various of its most vital services got turned around or simply abandoned. In brief:

       
New technology:
    ♠  (1) ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED)  (Jul 78)
                                                       Causing: (2) Change in the definition of Clear  (Sept 78)
      Causing: (3) ‘New Era Dianetics for OT's’ (NOT's)  (Sept 78)
      Causing: (4) First grades then Dianetics (Nov/Dec 81)
 
Introduced:
  Speculation about if one was Clear or not:  
   a) Scientology grades V-VII required or  not? (Sept 78);  
   b) Is any processing needed at all? (Sept 78)  &  
   c) Natural Clear? (Mar 79)
Being told if one was Clear, adjudicated by others (May 79)
 
Lost technology:
  (1) ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn)  (in use 1950-Jul 78)
 
(NOT's (’78) & Solo NOT's (’80)
knocked out original OT V-VII)
  (2) Original OT IV, V, VI and VII  (in use till Jan 82)
    (3) Original OT VIII (never officially released although dropped in Jan 82)

 

 Considered superfluous: 
  (4) Scientology grades V-VA (Power), VI (R6EW) and VII (Clearing Course)
            (caused by NED)                     (only sparesomely in use since Sept 78, if at all)

 
Index:

    
A necessary word of introduction ...
(page 1)
             - Foreword & A word about education
- Public release of this page and responses
 
The technical changes
  Chronological overview of Tech changes with source referencing and annotations
  Prelude:  Skipping the mention of GPM's in the definition of the Reactive Mind (Jun 75)
         (The Reactive Mind and GPM's, a study of its presentation in the various dictionaries (1965-present))
 
(1) ‘Ring out the old, ring in the new’:  ‘Standard Dianetics’ vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (Jul 78)
(page 2)
         - ‘Standard Dianetics’ (development of Routine 3R) (1963-78)
             (Introduction and brief overview of some basic elements from the early days;  The basic ‘Standard Dianetics’ auditing routine (R3R);  HCOB 14 May 69 II “F/N and Erasure” vs HCOB 1 Aug 70 “same title” - an oddity;  HSDC and HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)
      - ‘New Era Dianetics’ making its entry (1978-present)
- ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) knocking out ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A few comments
- (a) ‘Standard Dianetics’ (1969) vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (1978) - A comparison and study
            (An overview of a few evaluations being offered; A closer examination (1): “Drop of principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only)”; A closer examination (2): “Running with minimum TA” vs The significance of getting Tone Arm Action (TA))
      - (b) ‘Originating a postulate’ (1969) as opposed to ‘Digging for a postulate’ (1978)
- (c) Final observations for the defence of the Standard Dianetics technique
- ‘New Era Dianetics’ can not be run on Clears, but it can with ‘Standard Dianetics’
 
(2) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing a change in the definition of Clear? or Grades V-VII turning obsolete (Sept 78)
(page 3)
      - The ‘Scientology Clear’ (Grades V-VII) abandoned  &  A note about Grades 0-IV
        ((a) The ‘Scientology Clear’ (Grades V-VII) abandoned (includes note about training); (b) Changing one's mind ...; What about Grades 0-IV during Sept 78-Dec 81? - An irregularity)
      - Clear without processing (Sept 78), the ‘Natural Clear’ (Mar 79) and feeding Clear cognitions
- Final notices and the ‘Basic Basic’
  (3) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing the need for ‘New Era Dianetics for OT's’? (Sept 78)
  (4) First grades then Dianetics (Nov-Dec 81)   (on different page)
  (5a) The disappearance of the original OT levels IV to VII (Jan-Mar 82)   (on different page)
  (5b) Original OT VIII dropped (Jan-Mar 82) (OT VIII end of the road?)   (on different page)
 
Final evaluations and various testimonies
  Various closing considerations worthy of mention
      - (a) Brief overview
- (b) Warning signs  or  How easily a workable technology can get lost
- (c) Déjà vu? Banished in 1970, but accepted some 10 years later. Why?
- (d) Dianetics placed out of reach ... and not being delivered when it should ...
- The ‘David Mayo Bridge’
- Ideal scene  vs  The lost Bridge
  Witnesses of the time ...
      - Patricia Krenik, original Class VI auditor  (about ‘Standard Dn. vs. NED’)
- Michelle Matlock, original Class VIII auditor  (about Dianetics A.D. 1963)



 
Back to Main Index A necessary word of introduction ... 

 
Go back Foreword & A word about education

This page probably has turned out to be the most significant one that has surfaced in my studies concerning the subjects of Dianetics/Scientology. But it could not have been worked out properly if the previous studies had not been performed. I refer in particular to my studies about The definition of ‘Clear’, Notes on NED for OT's (NOT's), History of the Grade Chart, and the tracking found in my The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology. But vital bits of supporting information are also found in my Introduction chapter of my study L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2) (Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after).

It is reality that I had not planned a separate page concerning this until very recently. Suddenly however the necessity to create it dawned upon me. And here, once again, I am seriously rubbing long since established stable datums. If, that what my study on this page suggests is correct, then many have to admit to themselves that they have been educated with/have learned to use wrong tech and to have followed a false Bridge. Few, very few indeed, will be able to admit such a thing. It could be said that a curse lays upon man, a curse that tells him that he has to have right, that tells him that he could not possibly have made such an error in judgment, that he could not have been lead behind the curtain this easily, or that he just doesn't want to lose face in front of others (which in itself is an illusion as ignoring correct and verified data, now this will really make him lose face). And so man resorts to justify the matter, what he has been using during this many years (and this could have been up to as many as 30 years), this can not have been wrong. And man is very inventive indeed to put together his ‘defence’. And so, stubbornly, man continues the walk on the path he has been walking on for so very long. In the final end however he has to make a choice, and this choice is wholly up to him as an individual. The consequence of this choice is pending him achieving freedom or gain only a shadow of it!

There is not only engrams, secondaries, locks, and postulates. There is something else that may put a tremendous amount of burden or limitation upon man. And that is his education. If you want to rehabilitate man you also have to rehabilitate his education. You have to audit out his previous education if he is to see clearly and have true perspective. If attentiveness was lacking in his study, any of his studies, then this will have worked as authoritative education. The usual run is that it starts with his parents, then primary school will follow, college, university, and any other study that may follow on his path, he will then adopt and copy how others go about matters, and hence we will see less and less of him. He will tend to conform to the demands of this society or the group he has chosen to be part of, and he may be done for. It will have formed him as a person, formed him in how he reasons, how he sees things, and how he will act or not act. But it will not be him, but he will believe it is. Hence it will be your choice if you will be you. It requires you to be a careful observer, a very careful observer indeed!

Why do I write this? Because I find in my communications with many people that man favours to maintain and nurture his conviction above cultivating his understanding with full perception. He is not willing to let go of that which he once had been educated with, or change perceptions when new plausible options are brought to his attention. He will not consider, not even for a moment. I know people that have been Scientologists since as early as 1950 and I find that many of them still do not reason with understanding, they are still just following. How do I know this to be so? Put it through a simple test. How was I able to write such a page like this? How come did people pass by what it conveys? I only know of a few that placed question marks, very few indeed. Understanding does not come for free, it involves doingness, alertness and before all independency in mind. It may be perceived that the bulk of man (including many Scientologists), are gullible (don't find out for themselves, compare or verify), are copyists (sofa sitters), and true believers (don't or don't dare to ask the right questions). Man wants an easy way out, but alas there is no easy way out! The mind of man sways and submits easily. It often suffices to only make a suggestion, and if it is in his liking he will adapt to it fullheartedly.

“Know Thyself.”          Socrátes
         (inscribed at the temple of Apollo at Delphi)

These studies have been released for those that are willing to give it a fair chance and to consider the inconsistencies that have surfaced and that I have assembled.

 
Go back Public release of this page and responses

I made this study available on my site on 15 August 2010. I then released it in a more official capacity on 16 September 2010 in where I fowarded this directly to a fairly large crowd through email. I noted in my message:
        
“This has received my largest distribution ever, but this is not without reason. It may disturb some people as it will shake around some long since established stable datums, it thus may make them wonder a bit, or it may even acknowledge some. I fear however that for a certain majority it will present a reality that is not directly welcomed with open arms. For these please read the Foreword of my study! Although I have attempted to present the information as I found it, and I have been this meticulous about it as much as it has become my trademark.
        
 
Responses are requested, you may throw at me anything as you feel like, corrections, criticisms, validations, your displeasements, whatever, I will try to turn it into something useful. But let the responses be constructive and to the point!”
 

Indeed I may conclude that I did receive responses. The majority of these though were of a rather appreciative nature. But I also did receive a couple that were far less appreciative. These could be summed up as having taken the matter on a personal plane. Whereas ALL I did was forwarding an assemblage of information, it was never the intent to invoke anything personal. Investigative studies are simply not about that.

It appears also not understood by some that I do not offer a statement, I offer a study. I EXAMINE information and may, based on the factual data available, note down an evaluation thereof. My aim is also not speculation, although I have been accused of that. I simply offer evaluation of verified and observed data. I attempt to strictly follow an investigative scientific approach. And the only purpose of publishing these is to urge readers to consider matters for themselves. For me personally these are about a quest to find out truth.

Now, the problem with the critical responses is that virtually all of these were made up of opinionated statements lacking proper support of reference sourcing and/or further explanation. My exact and carefully laid out observations are not being addressed nor challenged to any extend. For me such responses are utterly meaningless as I can not possibly do anything with such opinionated rebuttals. It also would reveal that these critics may not have support for their statements or at least it may indicate that these were not very well though out by them. Why otherwise not actually forwarding support to these rebuttals where one can work with?

Then we have also the matter of the lacking responses from persons that in the past have forwarded valuable views and data to my releases. We have more than just a few of these.

Per the above I can conclude that this IS sensitive material and/or various matters/agreements are too well established.

The only truly useful responses that I received were from those persons that shared with me how they have experienced things at the time and how they personally dealt what that which surfaced on their path. Although the responses from for example this one top-classed auditor from the Free Zone that ruthlessly invalidated all of it and by repetition offering zero arguments are not to be underestimated as this reveals much about its originator.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Chronological overview of Tech changes with source referencing and annotations

  
   BEFORE ...
         AFTER ...  (since 1982)            
 
Training
Processing
 
 
Training
Processing
 
  
OT IV-VIII
  
  
New OT IV-VIII
↑ 
 
OT II-III
↑ 
 
OT II-III
↑ 
 
OT I
↑ 
 
New OT I (since 1984)
↑ 
 
CLEAR
(mandatory are
completion of
Grades V-VII to full
end phenomena )
↑  
 
CLEAR
(CCRD* - “confirming”
gotten Clear on the lower
bridge or even by
‘Natural Clear’)
  
Grade VII
(Clearing Course)*
New Era Dianetics
Auditor
 
(Class V Auditor since 1983)
New Era Dianetics
(NED)
  
Grade VI (R6EW)*
↑ 
  
Grade V-VA (Power)*
↑ 
Class 0-IV Auditor
Lower grades
(Grade 0-IV)
↑ 
Class 0-IV Auditor*
Lower grades
(Grade 0-IV)
↑ 
Standard Dianetics
Auditor

  (course included sections
for E-Meter training,
How to Study and TR's 0-4)
Standard Dianetics
(St Dn)
Pro Upper Indoc Course
(TR 6-9)
(since 1991)
Expanded
ARC Straightwire
Method One
Word Clearing*
(optional:  Scientology
Drug Rundown,
Happiness Rundown)
↑ 
Hubbard E-Meter
Course*
↑ 
Professional TR's*
Objectives (as required)
↑ 
Hubbard Qualified
Scientologist (HQS)*
ARC Straightwire
(optional, as required)
Student Hat*
Purification Rundown
(as required)
     
* These were basically abolished since September 1978, an Alternative Route to Clear was created shortly after although the reality is that Grades V-VII went practically out of use.
  * These were noted as prerequisites for the courses next up in line since the Nov 1983 chart and onwards. Be it noted here that the prerequisites for either the St Dn/NED course and the Grade 0 course went forth and back a bit as can be seen seen on the Jan 75 chart up till the Nov 1983 chart. Sometimes we see just listed the Basic Study Manual, then we see the Student Hat, then either one of them will do. Professional TR's listed and then again any TR's course would do. Sometimes the Method One Word Clearing was listed and then again not. (Consult for details the chronological table found here, separate window.)
  * This HQS course was not a prerequisite for the Standard Dianetics Auditor, but often it was done first.

A summary gives us:

Prelude:
Jun 1975
(GPM skipped from mention)
- An incomplete definition of the reactive mind made its entry in that which was supposed to be a major technical dictionary (‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (Jun 75 to present)). Whereas it was fully defined in a minor dictionary (‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (in use 1965-80)).
GPM's were left out of the definition of the reactive mind.
                          “The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs).”   LRH
(source: HCOB 17 Oct 64 III “Clearing, Why It Works, How It Is Necessary”)

30 Jul 1978
(NED released)
(St Dn abandoned)
- New Era Dianetics (NED) was officially released which at that very same time, and rather silently, wiped out of existence Standard Dianetics (St Dn). Standard Dianetics was established as such in 1969, reissue of 1950-Tech, and thus in use for close to 28 years till it was literally replaced and pushed aside by New Era Dianetics.
                          - It was figured though “... the further refinement of the technology of Dianetics which resulted in New Era Dianetics, ...”
(source: HCOB 24 Sept 78RA (Re-Revised 31 Mar 81) III “Dianetics Clear”)
Although it was not just a refinement, it was different technology.
  “Inevitably, when any new approach or process is released, some will instantly assume that all ‘older’ (actually more basic) data has been cancelled. There is no statement to that effect. It is not guessed that this will be assumed and so we could lose an entire subject.”   LRH
(source: HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “VIII Actions”)

12 Sept 1978
(Dianetics not run on Clears)
- “New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears.”.
- Which called into being New Era Dianetics for OT's (NOT's): “... Clear or above must be routed to an AO or Flag to receive the special NED Rundown for OTs. They are NOT to be run on regular New Era Dianetics.”
(source: HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”)
  - “New Era Dianetics cannot be run on Clears or above without serious consequences to the body particularly when New Era Dianetics is run wrong and upside down.”
(source: Message from David Mayo, Flag Senior C/S in ‘Source 18’, Nov-Dec 78, page 11)
                          - In 1978 I discovered that it was deadly to go on running Dianetics on a Dianetic Clear.” 
(source: ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”)
  Not being able to run Dianetics on Clears clashes with (1) HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” and (2) HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams”.

24 Sept 1978
(Dn Clear is Clear)
(Scn Clear abandoned)
- “The state of Clear can be achieved on Dianetics (=NED).”
- “... there is no such thing as Keyed-Out Clear (=release).”
- “There is only a Dianetic Clear and he is a Clear.”
- “The Dianetic Clear, on achieving this state, can be audited on Scientology Grades 0-IV. ... On completing Grades 0-IV, he is not run on Power (Grade V-VA) , R6EW (Grade VI) or the Clearing Course (Grade VII) on a Dianetic Clear but goes onto OT I, after doing the Solo Auditor Course.”
(source: HCOB 24 Sept 78 III “Dianetic Clear”)
                          - “..., with the further refinement of the technology of Dianetics which resulted in New Era Dianetics, and as a result of further tech developments, it became evident that some persons were attaining Clear at an earlier Grade Chart level.”
(source: HCOB 24 Sept 78RA (Re-Revised 31 Mar 81) III “Dianetics Clear”)
  “Run down and kill in its tracks any wild rumour that a ‘Dianetic Clear’ can't go on up the grades or have Power or go real Clear and OT.”   LRH
(source: ‘LRH ED 107 Int’ 3 Jun 70 “Orders to Divisions for Immediate Compliance”)
  “Amazingly, the reissue of Dianetics as Standard Dianetics caused about a dozen people (even in high places unfortunately) to at once assume that Dianetics wiped out any need for Power, Scientology Clearing or anything else!”   LRH
(source: HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “ VIII Actions”)
  “—and there is no shortcut for VI and VII. Anybody who comes along and tells you there's any shortcut for VI and VII, he's just trying to cut your throat. Remember that. There is no shortcut.”   LRH
(source: Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #72, renumbered 1991: #435 “Dianetic Auditing and the Mind”, given on 28 Jul 66)
  “Becoming a Dianetic Clear does not stop them from getting Power Processing (Grade V-VA). Modern Power is to its total End Phenomena.”   LRH  
(source: HCOB 25 Jun 70 II “Glossary of C/S Terms”)
  “That R6 bank (Grade VI) is still there. ... ..., one has to have run out the whole remaining Reactive Mind. We are awfully lucky to have the combination to the vault as it's been shut thoroughly for the trillions. That's done by a process known as R6-GPMI—or GPMs by Items. ... It took several years and thousands of hours of research auditing to just find the pattern of it.”   LRH
(source: HCOB 5 Aug 65 “Release Stages”)
  “BASIC BASIC—This belongs in Scientology. It is wholly beyond the scope of Dianetics. It means the most basic basic of all basics and results in clearing. It is found on the Clearing Course (Grade VII).”   LRH  
(source: HCOB 23 Apr 69 “Basic Definitions”)
  Skipping Grades V-VII further clashes with (1) HCOB 30 Jun 58 “Procedure for Certifying Clears”, (2) HCOB 7 Apr 60 “A New Summary of Auditing”, (3) HCOB 5 Aug 65 “Release Stages”, (4) Grand National Convention lecture “Expanded Grades and Training”, given on 21 Jun 70 & (5) HCOB 25 Jun 70 II “Glossary of C/S Terms”.

24 Sept 1978 (Clear cognition, feeding cognition)

- “Should a pc being audited on Dianetics originate that he has achieved Dianetic Clear, or if a Dianetic auditor thinks this has occurred with his pc, the folders must be routed to an org C/S who is Clear or above and who can adjudicate.”
(source: HCOB 24 Sept 78 III “Dianetic Clear”)
                          - “Should a pc originate that he has or might have gone Clear, or when he has read on a prepared list as having gone Clear, the folder must be sent to a C/S who is Clear and who is qualified to C/S the Dianetic Clear Special Intensive.”
(source: HCOB 24 Sept 78RA III (Re-Revised 31 Mar 81) “Dianetic Clear” )
  “Every now and then, I understand it was being done in the Los Angeles area for a while, but every now and then somebody has been told that he has gone Clear on Dianetics. ... And in the Los Angeles area I understand that some fellows were actually trying to feed the data and cognition to people who had gone and become a Dianetic Clear. They'd actually tried to feed their data to make them think that they had hit the upper level of Clear. And it had some rather bad repercussions actually.”   LRH
(source: Grand National Convention lecture “Expanded Grades and Training”, given on 21 Jun 70)
24 Sept 1978
(going Clear without Dianetics or Scientology processing)
                         
- “... the state of Clear, whether this is reached on the Clearing Course or at any point earlier in his auditing, ...”
(source: HCOB 29 Nov 78R (Revised 31 Mar 81) “Dianetic Clear Attests”)
- HCOB 24 Sept 78 IV (Confidential) “The State of Clear” confirms and in addition relays the information that it sometimes can occur on Goals Processing, or even Objective Processes.
5 Mar 1979
(Natural Clear announced)
- “Technically, a very few thetans have never been anything but Clear. These few didn't ‘go Clear’ on anything; they have simply always been Clear. When a natural Clear is found it should be so stated.”
(source: HCOB 5 Mar 79R (Revised 6 Mar 79) “Dianetic Clear False Declares”)
                          The claim for Natural Clears clashes with (1) HCOB 18 Jun 65 “Clear and OT Behaviour” and (2) Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #75, renumbered 1991 #438 “Releases and Clears”, given on 16 Aug 66.

12 Nov 1981
(Dianetics moved to after the grades)
- “NED now comes after Expanded Grade 4 on the Grade Chart”
(source: HCO PL 12 Nov 81 “Cancellation of Class 4, NED Prereq”)
- “The main change in the new Grade Chart is that Dianetics and Scientology have been switched around. One gets his Scientology, per this chart, before he gets his Dianetics.”
(source: HCOB 12 Dec 81 “The Theory of the New Grade Chart”)
                          - And previously in 1969: “Dianetics is not a prerequisite for pcs to be audited on Scientology grades. On the contrary. PCs CAN BE STARTED ON SCIENTOLOGY GRADES.”
(source: Non-LRH HCO PL 17 Nov 69 “Dianetics and Scientology Services”)
Which was never implemented on the Grade Chart nor practiced as an option.
  “Once one really understands that mental image pictures are all there is in the preclear's ‘mind’ one has understood the total of aberration. There is NOT something else there. No ‘id’, no ‘ego’. There are only mental image pictures. These, if you use the exact procedures of Dianetics, can be found and erased.”   LRH
(source: HCOB 23 Apr 69 “Basic Definitions”)
  “The Scientology auditor is all too often balked by the fact that his preclear comes to him already ill. His preclear is below being a well human being. That is part of the gradient. If the Scientology auditor is not also a good Dianetic auditor he tends to ignore the fact that his preclear is not yet up to being a well human being. ... Any Scientology failures are totally owing to the auditor not learning his Dianetics in the first place.”   LRH
(source: HCOB 6 Apr 69 “Fundamental Auditing”)

Jan/Mar 1982
(Original OT IV-VII dropped)
- “NEW OT IV – OT Drug Rundown” (service released 29 Jan 1980), 
“NEW OT V – Audited NOTs”
(service released 15 Sept 1978),
“NEW OT VI – Solo NOTs Auditor Course”
(service released Sept 1980),
“NEW OT VII – Solo NOTs Auditing”
(service released Sept 1980)
(source: ‘Source Special Edition’, folding insert, [Mar-Apr 82])
                          The original OT levels were released: OT IV, V & VI (Jan 1968);
OT III Expanded (Sept 1969); OT VII (20 Sept 1970)

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Prelude:  Skipping the mention of GPM's in the definition of the Reactive Mind (Jun 75)

        (The Reactive Mind and GPM's, a study of its presentation in the various dictionaries (1965-present))


“The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs).
”          LRH
         (from HCOB 17 Oct 64 III “Clearing, Why It Works, How It Is Necessary”)

 
Go back (a) ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (in use 1965 to 1980)

The aim of Dianetics is to get rid of this thing addressed as the Reactive Mind. For this reason to have a proper and complete definition as early on as possible is rather of great importance. Since 1965 we had this ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ in use. We find an entry of its publication in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition): It lists “Translations:  Danish, Dutch, French, German, Spanish, Swedish.”. This little publication was distributed at no charge (at least till 1975 at which time $1.00 was charged). An application form for this publication we find inserted in ‘Ability 181’, [Mar 66].
The publication listed a variety of definitions of the basic words that are used within the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. We find at:  (underlining is mine)
        
“REACTIVE MIND:  That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks.
        
Which is a very accurate and in particular a complete definition for Reactive Mind. This little dictionary even carried an entry at “GPM”.
This ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ publication was in use during 1965-80 during which time it was printed and reprinted 19 times (lastly printed December 1980). The text contained within the publication remained the same during all of this time. Most importantly it carried the following text in its introduction: “The SCIENTOLOGY ABRIDGED DICTIONARY has been compiled at Saint Hill from the works of L. Ron Hubbard, and its publication has been authorized by him as an official dictionary of Scientology.”.

 
Go back (b) ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (in use since 1975)

In June 1975 we see then the release of the first edition of ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’. In here we find the following as its first definition:  (underlining is mine)
        
“REACTIVE MIND, 1. a portion of a person's mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control, and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scn 0-8, p. 11)”
        

We see that the first sentence is the same. The second sentence however has been exchanged. This is quoted from the first chapter of the book ‘Scientology 0-8, The Book of Basics’ (released Nov 70). Noted is though that this first chapter “‘A Description of Scientology’ was compiled by staff book editor, SPO A/S, from writings and lectures of L. Ron Hubbard”. I am not sure where the original definition as found in the ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965) actually derives from. It also may be interesting to note here that ‘The Auditor 56 (UK Edition)’, [Oct 70] still lists GPM etc. in the definition given of the Reactive Mind on page 4. 


This definition of Reactive Mind as per ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965) is also found in some of the glossaries of the so-called basic books. I found it for example in the May 1976 print of the book ‘Notes on the Lectures’. In the new edition of 1989 of this very same book it was replaced in its glossary with:  (underlining is mine)
        
“reactive mind:  that portion of a person's mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. The reactive mind is where engrams are stored. also called bank.”
        
This appears to be a rewrite of what was found in ‘Scientology 0-8, The Book of Basics’ (and thus in the ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’).

Interestingly enough it did say in the ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ from 1965 that “its publication has been authorized by him (=L. Ron Hubbard) as an official dictionary of Scientology”. Then considering that what was the use of issuing this much thicker volume of definitions that we see published in 1975? We can immediately see that there is no particular approval of L. Ron Hubbard found anywhere in it. On its copyright page we see that it was “Compiled and edited by The LRH Personal Compilations Bureau”, followed with a listing of the names of various persons that had been involved with this task. The lacking of an approval does not make the work less valuable or usable, but the use and implementation of this altered definition for ‘reactive mind’ can easily be conceived as quite a miss! The book was updated and reprinted in 1978, but no changes were made in the definition of ‘reactive mind’. The 1983 edition was just a reprint of the 1978 edition with no changes made and continues to be the latest print till this day.
Of course we did have this ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ in use simultaneously and still in reprint in December 1980, but why did the larger dictionary not reflect what it said in this little dictionary regarding the definition for ‘reactive mind’? It has to be realized that the larger dictionaries definition in fact is incomplete!

 
Go back (c) ‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology’ (in use since 1981)

In 1981 we find that the ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’, that was in use during 1965-80, got replaced with this ‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology’ (1981). On its cover it noted: “from the works of L. Ron Hubbard”, whereas it controversially said on the copyright page: “This work is based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard.”. It carried no authorization from L. Ron Hubbard where the ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ actually did say so. We find that this publication is pretty much a re-work of the ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ . We find a variety of additions and various changes in existing definitions. We now find at:  (underlining is mine)
        
“REACTIVE MIND:  Reactive bank. The portion of the mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it will automatically give a certain response) which is not under a person's volitional control and which exerts force and over a person's awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of locks, secondaries, engrams and chains of them and is the single source of human aberrations and psychosomatic ills. ...”
        
We find also here that the mention of GPM's has been skipped in its definition. Please note that this entry as we find it in this ‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology’ let it follow with more verbal explanations of the characteristics of the Reactive Mind. Although it still fails to mention or explain GPM's.
We also see the entry “GPM” pulled from the dictionary. It is thus no longer defined. Obviously it was found, by some, not worth mentioning the term GPM nor defining it.

This publication added an Editor's Note in where we are amongst other informed that “Many of the definitions in it are taken verbatim from two larger Scientology dictionaries by L. Ron Hubbard: Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary and Modern management Technology Defined. Other definition have been taken from various books and tape lectures by L. Ron Hubbard and some were compiled by the editors especially for this Basic dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology”.
It mentions repeatedly ‘by L. Ron hubbard’. Be it noted though that he did not compile these two larger Scientology dictionaries mentioned in the above. He says specifically in the Introduction of the ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’: “... I relegated any dictionary compilations to staff action.”   LRH.

In 1988 we saw a revised reissue of this publication carrying the slightly adjusted title: ‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics & Scientology’. This time it says at:  (underlining is mine)
        
“reactive mind:  that portion of a person's mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. The reactive mind is where engrams are stored.
        
As we see this is basically reverting back to earlier used definitions in some of the dictionaries. But we see that it is still lacking the mention of GPM's.

 
Go back Summary (a-c)

‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (in use during 1965-80):
        
“REACTIVE MIND:  That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks.
        
‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (1975, still in use today):
        
“REACTIVE MIND, 1. a portion of a person's mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control, and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scn 0-8, p. 11)”
        
‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology’ (in use during 1981-87):
        
“REACTIVE MIND:  Reactive bank. The portion of the mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it will automatically give a certain response) which is not under a person's volitional control and which exerts force and over a person's awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of locks, secondaries, engrams and chains of them and is the single source of human aberrations and psychosomatic ills. ...”
        
‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics & Scientology’ (1988-to present):
        
“reactive mind:  that portion of a person's mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. The reactive mind is where engrams are stored.
        

 
Go back Additional observations, information and evaluations

HCOB 9 Jul 78 “Dianetics CS-1” lists a more complete definition still as the last paragraph notes:  (underlining is mine)
        
“It consists of locks, secondaries, engrams and chains of them and is the the single source of human aberration and psychosomatic ills.”
        
This is interesting as here it does note Locks and Secondaries, only skipping to mention GPM's. The phrase is not found anymore since its next revision HCOB 9 Jul 78RA (Revised 8 Apr 88) “same title”.
Odd enough however the original as well as the present version of HCOB 15 Jul 78 “Scientology Auditing C/S-1” do list Locks and Secondaries (not GPM's). After all these terms relate to Dianetics and not Scientology.
The original reference for these CS-1 matters were:
  HCOB 27 Oct 70 “Dianetic CS-1”   (do you have this, please contact me!)
    HCOB 8 Jan 71 “Auditing CS-1 for Dianetics and Scientology”
     (Expands on and replaces HCOB 27 Oct 70)  
  BTB 8 Jan 71R (Revised 18 Jun 74) “Auditing CS-1 for Dianetics and Scientology”    
These original references did not have a Definition Sheet (attachment) added as the later HCOB 9 Jul 78 “Dianetics CS-1” series of references had. Neither HCOB 8 Jan 71 nor BTB 8 Jan 71R make mention of the term GPM. Oddly enough HCOB 8 Jan 71 even had missed Engram in its list of words to be defined, this was corrected close to 3 months later with HCOB 30 Mar 71 III “Add to HCOB 8 Jan 71 Auditing CS-1”. Also it should be kept in mind that these early 70's releases were not written nor issued by L. Ron Hubbard, they were ‘Developed from procedures used by Flag Class VIII Auditors SO Training and Services Aide’, initials ‘JR’ are given.
It probably should also be kept in mind that Dianetics CS-1 were auditing sessions with the purpose to give new PC's the necessary data needed to be audited successfully. For this particular purpose the term GPM may have been too much to ask for and evidently too high a gradient.

GPM is quite a vital term when it comes to Dianetic clearing. This GPM is defined as follows:
        
“GPM:  Means Goals Problem Mass. A GPM is composed of mental masses and significances which have an exact pattern, unvarying from person to person, whose significances dictate a certain type of behaviour and whose masses, when pulled in on the individual, cause psychosomatic effects, such as illness, pains or feelings of heaviness and tiredness.”
(from ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965))
        
That what has been omitted from the definition of the Reactive Mind is the most essential part of it. This is what is run out together with the Basic Basic on the Clearing Course (Grade VII) (ref: HCOB 23 Apr 69 “Basic Definitions”).

Now, if L. Ron Hubbard himself says quite clearly in HCOB 17 Oct 64 III “Clearing, Why It Works, How It Is Necessary” that “The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs).”, obviously then GPM's should be included in its definition as are Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. That is if it is to be a complete definition. For some reason someone other than L. Ron Hubbard edited the GPM's out of the definition.

It is noted that the definition without mention of GPM is not particularly a wrong definition, but it is not complete. My main objection is that the earlier definition as found in this little ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ from 1965 is not even listed in the ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ from 1975 and present edition. On the contrary excluding it tends to make it look all rather suspect in regards to the fact that September 1978 actually skipped the Scientology Clear and thus the Basic Basic (first engram on the track). GPM is very important in regards to the subject of Dianetics and therefore should be included in the official definition of the Reactive Mind.

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on. 
     Advanced Org(anization) (AO):
The denominates a Scientology organization which delivers higher level auditing and training. The first Advanced Organization was located in Saint Hill, England. The initials AO will appear somewhere in the name for the various AO's. For example: AOLA, ASHO, AOSH EU, etc.. This may also be referred to as a Saint-Hill organization.
     AO:
Short for ‘Advanced Organization’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     bank:
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”. (HCOB 30 Apr 69)  See also at ‘reactive mind’ in vocabulary.
     BTB:
Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked.
     CCRD:
Clear Certainty Rundown’.
     C/S:
Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
     (auditing) CS-1:
Case Supervisor-1’. 1. A general C/S which covers the basics of getting a preclear sessionable. The product is an educated pc who can run Scientology or Dianetics easily and get case gain. (BTB 8 Jan 71R)  2. Purpose: to give preclears new to Dianetics or Scientology and to give previously audited preclears as needed, the necessary data and R-factor on basics and auditing procedure so that he understands and is able and willing to be audited successfully. (BTB 8 Jan 71R)
     Clear:
1. What we mean by Clear is an erasure of the mental mass which inhibits their thinking, postulating, and so on. (SH Spec 75, 6608C16)  2. An unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He obtains the maximum pleasure for the organism, present and future, as well as for the subjects along the other dynamics. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data in it. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 111)
     Dn:
Short for ‘Dianetics’.
     engram:
1. Simply moments of physical pain strong enough to throw part or all the analytical machinery out of circuit; they are antagonism to the survival of the organism or pretended sympathy to the organism's survival. That is the entire definition. Great or little unconsciousness, physical pain, perceptic content, and contra-survival or pro-survival data. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 68)  2. A moment when the analytical mind is shut down by physical pain, drugs or other means, and the reactive bank is open to the receipt of a recording. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 153)  3. The word engram is an old one borrowed from biology. It means simply, “a lasting memory trace on a cell.” It may be engraved on more than the cell, but up against Dianetic processing, it is not very lasting. (Science of Survival, p. 10)  4. A recording which has the sole purpose of steering the individual through supposed but usually nonexistent dangers. (Science of Survival, p. 10)  5. A mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)  6. A complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). 
     GPM:
Goals Problem Mass’. 1. A GPM is composed of mental masses and significances which have an exact pattern, unvarying from person to person, whose significances dictate a certain type of behaviour and whose masses, when pulled in on the individual, cause psychosomatic effects, such as illnesses, pains or feelings of heaviness and tiredness. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary).  2. The problem created by two or more opposing ideas which being opposed, balanced, and unresolved, make a mass. It's a mental energy mass. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06).  3. The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs). (HCOB 17 Oct 64 III)
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line.
For more information go here (separate window).
     HQS:
Hubbard Qualified Scientologist’.  1. Teaches about co-auditing and how to handle other people with group auditing. Processes taught are TRs (Training Routines) 0 to 4 and 6 to 9, co-auditing on CCHs (Control Communication Havingness processes), Op Pro by Dup (Operating Procedure by Duplication process) and Self Analysis Lists.  2. This course is a basic course in the fundamentals of Scientology technology and gives a gradient of application of a few vital principles.
     lock:
1. An analytical moment in which the perceptics of the engram are approximated, thus restimulating the engram or bringing it into action, the present time perceptics being erroneously interpreted by the reactive mind to mean that the same condition which produced physical pain once before is now again at hand. Locks contain mainly perceptics; no physical pain and very little misemotion. (Science of Survival, p. 112)  2. A situation of mental anguish. It depends for its force on the engram to which it is appended. The lock is more or less known to the analyzer. It's a moment of severe restimulation of an engram. (Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, p. 84).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH ED:
L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC ED's (Secretarial ED's). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     NED:
New Era Dianetics’. Offcially released to the public on 30 July 1978 (ref.: ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78). It replaced and abolished the previous in use Standard Dianetics (St Dn).
     Objectives:
Refers to a package of processes which are part of a step found somewhere at the bottom of the Grade Chart or Bridge (Classification Gradation and Awareness Chart of Levels and Certificates). Generally this consists of the CCH processes I-IV (see HCOB 1 Dec 65 “CCHs”).
(CCH: Control, Communication & Havingness. Several associated processes which bring a person into better control of his body and surroundings, put him into better communication with his surroundings and other people, and increase his ability to have things for himself. They bring him into the present, away from his past problems.)
     Operating Thetan (OT):
1. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08)  2. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09)  3. A being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta (θ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (Book of Case Remedies, p. 10)
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     OT:
Short for ‘Operating Thetan’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     R6:
Routine 6’. It means the exact processes and aspects of case handled at Level VI of Scientology (BTB 12 Apr 72R)
     R6EW:
Routine 6 End Words’. When the pc has taken the locks off the reactive mind itself, using R6EW, he attains Fourth Stage Release. (HCOB 30 Aug 65) [Grade VI Release].
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58)
     Rundown:
A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. Example: Introspection Rundown. (LRH Def. Notes)  As a rule this mostly works as a corrective action and not as a mandatory part of the Bridge.
     Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor.
     Scn:
Short for ‘Scientology’.
     St Dn:
Standard Dianetics’. Reissue of 1950-Tech, as such established and released in April 1969 (ref.: HCOB 24 Apr 69 “Dianetic Use”). It was finalized in December of that year. Abolished and replaced by New Era Dianetics (NED) since 30 July 1978.
     thetan:
1. The living unit we call, in Scientology, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scientology to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Ability Magazine 1)  2. The person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Auditor 25 UK)
     TR:
training regimen or routine’. See at ‘training routine’ in vocabulary.
     training routine (TR):
Training regimen or routine. Often referred to as a training drill. TRs are a precise training action putting a student through laid out practical steps gradient by gradient, to teach a student to apply with certainty what he has learned. In particular these are for training of an auditor in regards to communication. The ones presently in use are OT TR 0, TR 0 confronting, TR 0 bullbait, TR 1, 2, 2½, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 100, 100-A, 101, 102, 103 & 104. (for more data see ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ & HCOB 17 Jul 69RB)

Go to top of this page


Copyright © 2010, 2013  Michel Snoeck.  All rights reserved.
This page revised: 15 June, 2014